You really haven't seen a significant improvement in their level of play?

Click to expand...

In terms of defense yes, but overall it's too inconsistent to say that we've made the jump to being at that level of play. I realize that players are injured and the rotations are a mess and considering that we're pulling through. But so far the sample size is unreliable. I feel like the defense has improved from earlier in the year, but we were so bad then i don't know how to quantify the improvement. i don't lack all hope for the team. I wouldn't waste my time following them if i did.

I'm beginning to think he best situation would be to alternate and have it determined by match-ups. While that's probably unrealistic at least they can both pout (or not pout)

I don't know, but when i see this type of play being a constant and us settling into playing this way every night i guess it's then. We are getting back to establishing a defensive identity, but it's not there yet, and i can't really give a # of games when it will be. The team is still in transition. Who they are will probably be cemented in the post-season (or hopefully after ASG). The team is too erratic to make that call right now, and our defense relies heavily on Amir Johnson and he can be as erratic as they come.

Why do you even ask for my opinion? You obviously don't care what it is and according to you my posts are not analysis anyway. If you're just looking for someone to make sarcastic retorts to and constantly disagree with, i'm sure there are other people on this forum who will be happy to do that with you.

I didn't. I asked the question for insight into your methodology re: sample size. It was clarification of what your opinion was based upon.

I wrote and re-wrote a response to this a couple times. I don't want to upset you, but what you're doing is making arguments that can't be refuted and allow you a lot of creative leeway to post whatever you want and claim it as valid.

Which would work, on a blog. But this is discussion forum. Where what people say and think is discussed, and thus opinions don't exist in a vacuum.

It is disingenuous to say a sample is too small, and then claim you don't know what would be big enough to count, all the while holding your own opinion, that the team is not playing well, which I can only assume means you did use some size of sample to determine that.

That's why I said "moving goalposts". If you want to say the team played bad, you will use a single game in Portland and 1 point loss, to advocate for Rip starting over AI. But if someone points out that 10 games without Rip and with AI playing with Stuck has given us a best in the league defense during that stretch, you'll claim that sample is too small to mean anything.

Do you see how this doesn't quite add up, and you're applying different standards to what you write, than what you expect from others?

You're entitled to an opinion. But if you're wrong (or right), that is what it is. An opinion is not valid just because someone can hold it.

If you take a look around the Eastern Conference you will see that Tay is just as tall as the majority of the match-ups he draws at the 4 while giving up approx. 20 lbs. 20 lbs. is a lot to give to someone but with his reach he can counter that at least a little. Rip on the other hand is nearly an inch shorter on average and what's worse is he is giving up approx. 30 lbs. per match-up. He weighs 193 lbs! I found the average weight of a starting SF in the East to be roughly 225 lbs.

Numbers aside, my point is that Tay has the length to at least attempt to guard a PF while Rip has a hard time "D"ing up someone his own size.

Click to expand...

It's not the size, it's the style of play (The motion in the ocean, if you will). The 3 is still a perimeter position. They play a similar game to SG's in many cases. PF's are an entire world away from SF's. You have to deal with a lot more post ups, and guys focusing on crashing the offensive glass, etc. 3's don't use that extra size as much as 4's do.

^ Obviously, this is just "In general", because there are definitely exceptions at both positions. I even said it wasn't "ideal", but I think the deal presents a value that Portland wouldn't pass down since Roy can play 1-2-3, and Rip can spend some spot time at the 3 as well.

FWIW, Bruce Bowen was long considered the perfect defender at the 3, and he's 6-7 200lbs just like Rip.

Well, you did claim it was unsubstantiated, then back pedaled. Sorta the same deal as Menace. What you call objectivity, is the radical opposite in this case.

I don't get why McCosky has to be the soft target for Hamilton's and the team's issues. Maybe we should just stop getting any Pistons news, lest there is something for the fans to talk and argue about?

Click to expand...

No comment. You seem to be getting a little heated about this, and I'd rather not say something that escalates the debate.

"[Head Coach Michael Curry has] got to figure out something to do with Richard Hamilton and Allen Iverson," says Blakely. "Both of those guys are needed on this team, but you don't necessary need them on the floor at the same time. I think one of those guys has got to come off the bench, and Michael [Curry] has got to figure out which one of those guys to bring off the bench, and I'd be very surprised if you don't see that happen at some point this season."

Click to expand...

Listen to the full interview to hear Blakely's thoughts on the Pistons' reunion with Chauncey Billups and what the team's ideal rotation is.

One thought I keep coming back to: Does it really matter if AI and Rip both start? A game is 48 minutes. Both players are surely going to be playing at least 35-40 minutes a game on a regular basis. If you tried to split them up so they weren't playing at the same time, there would still be 11-16 minutes or more of overlap time when they would be on the court together. So does it really matter that they start the game together as long as Curry subs one of them out after a brief period of time? I wonder if this is a bridge that he even needs to cross.

I didn't. I asked the question for insight into your methodology re: sample size. It was clarification of what your opinion was based upon.

I wrote and re-wrote a response to this a couple times. I don't want to upset you, but what you're doing is making arguments that can't be refuted and allow you a lot of creative leeway to post whatever you want and claim it as valid.

Which would work, on a blog. But this is discussion forum. Where what people say and think is discussed, and thus opinions don't exist in a vacuum.

It is disingenuous to say a sample is too small, and then claim you don't know what would be big enough to count, all the while holding your own opinion, that the team is not playing well, which I can only assume means you did use some size of sample to determine that.

That's why I said "moving goalposts". If you want to say the team played bad, you will use a single game in Portland and 1 point loss, to advocate for Rip starting over AI. But if someone points out that 10 games without Rip and with AI playing with Stuck has given us a best in the league defense during that stretch, you'll claim that sample is too small to mean anything.

Do you see how this doesn't quite add up, and you're applying different standards to what you write, than what you expect from others?

You're entitled to an opinion. But if you're wrong (or right), that is what it is. An opinion is not valid just because someone can hold it.

Does any of that sound unreasonable?

Click to expand...

I strongly support LP Girl in this discussion. That is all I will say. Have a great evening both of you.